Thoughts on Patriarchy

Posted by
I have received some complaints that my interaction with Phil Ryken (see below, 1/29/07) on patriarchy represents a capitulation on the issue of biblically-mandated male leadership.  My comment on use of the term "patriarchy" was made more or less in passing, so it may be helpful for me to expand a little.

My basic point was that the word "patriarchy" down-loads some ideas that go beyond the biblical warrant for male leadership.  What I meant by that is that Old Testament patriarchy (Abraham, etc.) involved the leadership of the senior man over an extended family, including grandchildren, daughters-in-law, etc.  As I understand things, male leadership properly extends to one's own family.  When I place one of my daughter's hand into the arm of some young man in the wedding ceremony, my headship over her ends -- it is transferred to her husband.  Likewise, when my sons marry, I do not believe I will have biblical warrant for exercising authority over their families.  I do not know if anyone is advocating such things today, but my point is that the term "patriarchy" invokes (for me at least) some of these social arrangements. Moreover, I would point out that so far as I am aware, "patriarchy" is not a biblical term.  Therefore, our job is to rightly represent the concept that the Bible is teaching, and I just don't think "patriarchy" is the best term to represent the biblical ideal of male leadership (see above).

I admit that my main concern in gender issues in the church today has to do with encroaching feminism, which I believe is harmful both to men and women and does not follow the Bible's teaching.  But I do think there is some excess zeal on the other side -- on the side of patriachy, that is.  One practice that concerns me is the idea of "household membership" in some churches.  I think it is pretty neat, actually, to hold "head of household" meetings, if the intent is to reinforce the role of the covenant family in the church.  I would think that this sends the message that heads of household -- whether they are husbands, single moms, or adult singles -- have an obligation to the church to lead their households spiritually.  But it troubles me when wives no longer possess a vote as church members.  Does this not risk sending a signal that they do not have standing in the church as Christian individuals? 

This falls under the category of individual and corporate Christianity, which is much discussed these days.  I would agree that for a long time we have neglected corporate and covenantal ideas of Christian experience.  But let's not flee to the other extreme, emphasizing the corporate in a way that practically denies individual church membership and Christian experience.  Likewise, while I stand in strong support of the Bible's mandate for male leadership in the church and home, let's not put it into practice in ways that suggest that women have a lesser standing in either.
Posted February 5, 2007 @ 1:15 PM by Rick Phillips
TOPICS:
1709 What Every Christian.jpg
reformation21 is the online magazine of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. It is supported only by its readers and gracious Christians like you. Please prayerfully consider supporting reformation21 and the mission of the Alliance. Please donate here.


Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc. © 2005-2016   |   alliance@alliancenet.org   |   800.956.2644   |   Frequently Asked Questions   |   Login